Michigan Chapter Update - April 17, 2016

Chapter comments on ET Rover pipeline

 Michigan Chapter

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street NE, Room 1A

Washington, DC 20426

Dear Ms. Bose,

The comments submitted below are pursuant to the proposed ET Rover Pipeline (Docket #CP15-93-000).  These comments are submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, 109 E Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906.  The comments include two sections, one directed at FERC’s ultimate public convenience and necessity determination, and one directed specifically at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Nancy Shiffler

Chair, Michigan Beyond Natural Gas and Oil Committee

April 11, 2016

Section I:  Evidence of Public Convenience And Necessity.

This section looks at the decision FERC must make in determining whether to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.   The recent FERC decision on Dockets CP 13-483-000 and CP 140492-000 (p. 12) summarizes the guidance stated in the Certificate Policy Statement: “The Certificate Policy Statement explains that in deciding whether to authorize the construction of major new pipeline facilities, the Commission balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences. The Commission’s goal is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement of competitive transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by existing customers, the applicant’s responsibility for unsubscribed capacity, the avoidance of unnecessary disruptions of the environment, and the unneeded exercise of eminent domain in evaluating new pipeline construction.”

Consequently, it is useful to consider the public convenience and necessity side of the balance to provide the context for reviewing the Draft EIS.

Market Pull is Limited

[The data presented here relate primarily to the pipeline market segments in Michigan and Canada].  The market for natural gas appears to be diminishing in Michigan. Michigan’s natural gas demand has decreased, with 2014-2015 natural gas usage below 1990s and 2000s levels.  DTE, the largest utility in Michigan, forecasts a decline in natural gas sales for all rate classes due to efficiencies (12/2015). (https://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/17999/0015.pdf.) Consumers Energy also forecasts lower natural gas sales ( https://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/17943/0001.pdf.)

 Electric demand in Michigan has declined for the past 4 years and is predicted to continue to do so.  Per a recent DTE rate case, electric “sales are expected to decrease from 47,291 GWh in 2014 to 46,371 GWh in 2026. This represents a 0.2% average annual decrease in sales from 2014.” “Industrial sales are expected to decrease 0.4% annually, on average, through 2026.”
 (http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/18014/0002.pdf, p. 34).
Consumers Energy also predicts declining electric sales (Exhibit A-10 (HWM-3)  (https://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/17735/0003.pdf).

The price incentive for Rover to transport gas to the Dawn Hub has disappeared. Most, if not all, of Rover’s Market Segment capacity is destined for Dawn in order to take advantage of Dawn’s historical premium price. Today, the prices at Dawn and Henry Hub are virtually the same and the profit incentive has disappeared. Note the price convergence in this table: 

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-gas/midwest/ngas-mw-yr-pr.pdf 

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) just issued their 2015 Natural Gas Market Review (4/2016). In it they forecast that Dawn and Henry Hub prices will be virtually identical, with Dawn’s price being lower by about eight cents per MMBtu in 2021.  

In OEB reports, business organizations voiced their concerns that Rover (and Nexus) gas at Dawn will cause unnecessary and costly overbuild of the Dawn Parkway pipeline. They prefer less expensive transportation paths from Marcellus/Utica via the Niagara, Chippewa and Waddington, New York interconnect points. 

 http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/oeb/_Documents/EB-2015-0237/Staff_Report_to_the_Board_2015_NGMR_20160406.pdf 

The landed cost of gas into the Enbridge EDA (Toronto) would be lower from Niagara ($4.90 $CAD/GJ) and Waddington ($5.30) than from Vector ($5.55), Rover ($5.73) or Nexus ($5.82). 

http://www.rds.ontarioenergyboard.ca/webdrawer/webdrawer.dll/webdrawer/rec/516178/view/

The prospects of large, long term LNG exports have been greatly diminished by:  Australia doubling their LNG export capacity; plans for a NG pipeline from Iran to Europe; discovery of gas off Egypt; worldwide trend towards using more renewable energy and energy efficiency; plus, 195 nations pledged at COP21 to cut CO2 and methane emissions.
Most US and Canadian LNG export plans are being questioned by the financial community.

Prospects of transporting gas to the Gulf have been diminished by the many pipeline reversals that already transport gas to that region directly from Marcellus and Utica.

We Are Overbuilding Pipelines.

The US Department of Energy (DOE), in a report from February 2015, stated that only 54% of current US pipeline capacity is being used, and better utilization could reduce the need for new pipelines.  Michigan has the largest gas storage in the U. S.; it would not need pipeline capacity beyond existing pipelines to prepare for proposed conversions of some coal plants to natural gas.  In January 2016, electric generation accounted for only 14% of total gas usage in Michigan (http://www.eia/gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_SMI_m.htm).

A review of SNL pipeline statistics finds Michigan and Midwest gas pipelines are underutilized, even in January. US natural gas storage is at record levels and prices are very low – both caused by overproduction and not a lack of pipes.

There is increasing evidence and concern that we are reaching a state of overbuild in pipeline infrastructure (https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/article.aspx?cdid=A-35872577-11048&Printable=1).  This is particularly apparent from the large number of pipelines from the Marcellus/Utica play proposed or being built, including the Nexus pipeline, which essentially duplicates the Rover route.  Pipeline overbuild has a major environmental impact because it unnecessarily damages or destroys thousands of acres of the environment and property.  Overbuilding is evidence of a lack of public need; if there is a lack of public need, then eminent domain is inappropriate.

Financial Stability of Producers is Questionable.

Rover is essentially a producer-driven project with little demonstrated market pull.  In many cases the producers are financially questionable and may not have the financial strength to comply with 20-year commitments.  Most Utica/Marcellus producers are in financial trouble with unsustainable debt loads. Many have declared Chapter 11. Plus, it appears that Ascent Resources and most Rover shippers/producers do not meet even Rover’s minimum creditworthiness criteria for long-term unsecured debt securities of at least BBB- by Standard & Poor’s and at least Baa3 by Moody’s. (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=14013866.)

Section II:  Comments Regarding the Draft EIS

Given FERC’s role of balancing “public convenience and necessity” against potential adverse impacts, we have a number of concerns after reviewing the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS Dismisses Viable Information for the No-Build Alternative. 

The Draft EIS is further flawed because of its failure to consider alternatives other than modes of fuel transport, such as a cleaner fuels and energy conservation alternative. This is exemplified in the dismissive tone in the section 3.1 discussion of the no-action alternative, which ends with this statement:

“Authorizations related to how individual regions of the United States will meet demands for electricity are not part of the application before the Commission, and their consideration is outside the scope of this EIS.  Therefore, because the purpose of the Rover Project is to transport natural gas, and generation of electricity from renewable energy sources or the gains realized from increased energy efficiency and conservation are not transportation alternatives, they cannot function as a substitute for the Rover Project and are not considered or evaluated further in this analysis.”

The Draft EIS does not adequately account for the role of energy conservation and efficiency and the use of renewable energy in reducing market demand.  With the trends in improved technology and reduced costs for renewables and efficiency, one would expect them to play a greater role in the near term and, thus, play an important role in consideration of alternatives.

FERC must, according to NEPA, demonstrate why “No Action” will not meet a demonstrated “Need.”  Consequently, the “No Action” alternative must be fully analyzed, and FERC’s refusal to do so needs a much better justification than is currently provided in the Draft EIS.  FERC must both describe the negative consequences of “No Action,” and demonstrate that this particular permit for this particular project is necessary to avoid these negatives.

FERC Is Providing Incomplete Information To Landowners Regarding Acquisition Of Easements.

FERC is providing implicit encouragement to landowners to settle with the company rather than going through eminent domain proceedings.  However, it neglects to tell them that FERC uses the proportion of negotiated right-of-way agreements as an indicator favoring approval of the project, putting a thumb on the scale that balances public need with adverse impacts.

We note this statement from Notice of Intent and echoed in your “What Do I Need to Know” handbook for landowners:

“If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned pipeline facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, a condemnation proceeding could be initiated where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.”

We also note this statement from FERC’s Certificate Policy Statement (1999) [not provided directly to landowners]:

“[T]he Company might minimize the effect of the project on landowners by acquiring as much right-of-way as possible. In that case, the applicant may be called upon to present some evidence of market demand, but under this sliding scale approach the benefits needed to be shown would be less than in a case where no land rights had been previously acquired by negotiation.”

And this from Order Clarifying Statement of Policy (2000) [also not provided to landowners]:

“The Policy Statement encouraged project sponsors to acquire as much of the right-of-way as possible by negotiation with the landowners and explained how successfully doing so influences the Commission's assessment of public benefits and adverse consequences.”

FERC should provide landowners on the original route and on any alternative routes a clear explanation of the NEPA requirements and how FERC interprets landowner agreements in its decision process.  Having failed to do this for this specific project, FERC should not assume that completed agreements minimize the impact on landowners when weighed against supposed public benefits. 

Land Use Impacts, Both Short-Term and Long-Term, Are Adverse.

Impact on Soil.  FERC has received a number of comments from farmers expressing concerns about the impact on soil structure from construction of the pipelines.  The primary concern is the long-lasting impact on soil productivity, which farmers have already noticed from previous rights-of-way construction (see, for example, the comments of Darla Huddle from Napoleon, Ohio).  It has also been noted in other parts of the Midwest, for example in reports from testimony concerning a pipeline proposal in Iowa in 2015 (http://amestrib.com/news/bakken-pipeline-may-damage-soil-conditions-generations): “If fertility is reduced, whether it’s due to contaminated top soil, disruption of water movement within the soil, change in soil temperature due to the presence of the pipeline or any of the other possible issues that Fenton believes could come from the pipeline’s construction, it could mean significant damage to the local farmland, agricultural industry and yield farmers get from their crops.”  Multiplied by the many miles of the Rover pipeline traveling through farmlands (more than half of the affected pipeline acreage) and added to the cumulative impact of other proposed pipelines in Ohio and Michigan, the effect on agricultural production could be significant both locally and regionally.  

Given the potential long-term impacts on productivity, FERC’s recommendation of a 5-year productivity monitoring process is itself evidence of its significance. However, combined with some rather vague mitigation promises, five years is inadequate.  The draft EIS states that landowners are “encouraged” to negotiate with Rover for additional mitigation as needed.  What redress do they have if Rover refuses the request or has insufficient financing to complete it?  The landowner should not have to resort to litigation to seek redress for documented losses.  There is already evidence in comments from farmers that Rover has been difficult to negotiate with prior to construction (see for example comments submitted by Ben Polasek from Ohio); negotiations post-construction could be even more difficult.  Ultimately, the Draft EIS should be treating this soil productivity issue not as a short-term impact, but rather as a long-term or permanent impact.

Impact on Forested Lands.  FERC determined that the project would result in some adverse and significant impacts, which “would occur during both construction and operation of the Projects and occur on vegetation and wildlife.”  The impact from the clearing of forested areas would be particularly significant, representing some 32% of the project’s vegetation impacts.  Despite the proposals to minimize and mitigate, these impacts remain real -- in many cases permanent -- and should be considered carefully in the balance between “public need” and adverse impacts.

Special Use Areas.  In Michigan the pipeline route would pass through a section of Pinckney State Recreation Area, one of the most actively used public land areas in southeast Michigan, with trails and facilities used year round.   Approximately 23 acres would be affected by construction, and 9 by operation activities.  Whenever the construction work takes place, activities would be disrupted.   Any right of way through a forested area would have a permanent impact. We note in particular that the Losee Lake Trail is crossed three times – a major impact for a trail only three miles long. 

Wildlife.  We concur with the concerns expressed in the Department of the Interior’s comments submitted 4/1/2016 related to bat habitat:  “the combined effects of the project, even with the MBCP, could result in significant adverse effects to federally-listed bats and their habitat.”  We also concur with the emphasis on avoiding the clearing of bat and migratory habitat during the breeding and nesting season; lack of compliance by Rover would be evidence of a significant adverse impact.

 Water Crossings.  On page 4-78, FERC recommends the use of dry-ditch construction for sensitive water bodies or cold-water fisheries, except for those already designated for Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD).  In order to provide additional protection for these sensitive water bodies and cold-water fisheries, including protection of their edges, we would advocate the use of HDD for all of them.  Further, for the 810 crossings proposed using the open-cut method, we would advocate for the use of dry-ditch methods to avoid excessive downstream siltation.

Mitigation Efforts Are Not Well-Defined.

FERC maintains that all of the described impacts could be sufficiently mitigated if FERC’s proposed 55 conditions are carried out.  However, many of the conditions involve the submission by Rover of additional information and plans, instructions to “coordinate with landowners regarding mitigation and compensation,” or instructions to develop long-term “monitoring” plans.  The question remains open whether these conditions will be satisfactorily carried out and whether the adverse conditions will be adequately identified, let alone mitigated. As noted in the complaint filed by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network in the U. S. District Court of the District of Columbia (Case No. 16-416), “The Commission has demonstrated a pervasive failure to enforce the terms and conditions of its Certificates on pipeline projects.”  The complaint further states, “the Commission has never issued a civil penalty for violations related to construction, maintenance, or operational misconduct for any pipeline project despite noncompliance events.”

The sheer number of conditions and the emphasis on monitoring, followed by some vague future mitigation if it does not work, do not breed confidence the adverse impacts can actually be mitigated or avoided.  FERC’s own enforcement performance casts additional doubt

Safety Requirements May Not Fully Account For The Potential Impact Radius

The Draft EIS sets conditions for additional safety protections for identified High Consequence Areas (HCA).  However, it is not completely clear in the Draft EIS which of two methods for identifying HCAs is being used.  The method based on classification areas uses the number of human-occupied buildings within 220 yards of the right-of-way center for the area for class location units.  Given that the potential impact radius for 36- or 42-inch pipelines is approximately 1000 feet or more, this method appears inadequate.  The second method would take radius of impact into account for areas with 20 or more buildings or structures occupied by 20 or more persons.  This appears to be a more inclusive approach, but is small comfort to those in areas with, for example, 10 buildings or 10 persons.  In any event, the Draft EIS identifies 59 HCAs, making up about 9% of the proposed route area.  Any enterprise of this sort is admittedly based on risk management rather than absolute avoidance of risk, but risk estimates are, again, small comfort to those living within an impact radius.  The various distance measures and numbers of homes appear to be arbitrary and do not adequately account for the radius of impact for pipelines of this diameter.  For this reason, we argue that the pipeline should be routed to avoid human-occupied buildings within the radius of impact.  We stress that the potential for adverse impacts in these situations far outweighs the very weak argument for public need for this project.

Green House Gases and Impacts on Climate Change Are Not Addressed Adequately.

In the discussion of climate change and green house gases in the Draft EIS, FERC included the following statement:

“Currently, there is no standard methodology to determine how the proposed Projects’ relatively small incremental contribution to GHGs would translate into physical effects of the global environment. The GHG emissions from the construction and operation of the Projects would be negligible compared to the global GHG emission inventory.”

Yet the EPA has consistently stated in its comments on EIS reviews that there is sufficient relationship and predictability of the GHG impacts to include them in environmental reviews.  While dismissing the impact of the Project on global emissions as unmeasurable and negligible, the FERC’s Draft EIS, in several places, shows no reluctance to note the lower CO2 emissions from burning natural gas compared to other fossil fuels as a benefit of the Project.  The logic here seems to be contradictory, slanting in favor of the project.

FERC should take notice of the recently released Harvard study (Turner, et al., Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2218–2224, doi:10.1002/2016GL067987), which reports satellite data showing a 30% increase in U.S. methane emissions from 2002-2014, with the trend being largest in the central part of the country, including Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan.  The study concludes that, “This large increase in U.S. methane emissions could account for 30–60% of the global growth of atmospheric methane seen in the past decade.”

 Although the Harvard study does not attribute the increase to a specific source, the trend coincides with the increase in natural gas production in those areas.  Recent studies have also indicated that methane emissions and leaks from gas production and transportation facilities have been underestimated.   Consequently, the impact of the Rover project on GHG’s should not be dismissed so easily, particularly when considered with the cumulative impact of several pipeline projects proposed for the same region. 

The Draft EIS fails to adequately analyze the impacts of the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions on climate change as required by NEPA.  “The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis that NEPA requires agencies to conduct.” Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 508 F.3d 508, 550 (9th Cir. 2007)); Mid States Coalition for Progress v. Surface Transportation Board, 345 F.3d 508 (9^th Cir. 2008); Border Power Plant Working Group v. DOE, 260 F.Supp 2d 997 (S.D. Cal. 2003).  NEPA calls for a quantification of the “incremental impact[s] that [the proposed project’s] emissions will have on climate change … in light of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172, 1216 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, the Draft EIS must quantify and evaluate the cumulative and incremental effects of climate change resulting from the proposed project and connected actions in comparison to and in conjunction with the effects of emissions of other reasonable alternatives or actions – past, present and reasonably foreseeable.

Cumulative Impacts And The Need For A Programmatic EIS Should Be Considered.

FERC continues to take a limited view of cumulative impacts, both for the pipeline itself over its extended range and in concert with the many other projects in the region.  FERC focuses on localized effects rather than on the combined effects on broader areas such as watersheds and drainage systems.   Likewise, regional farm production or the health of species of concern should be considered cumulatively.  A valid cumulative impacts analysis should address upstream extraction in the Marcellus/Utica plays as well as downstream transportation and combustion.  

While acknowledging 10 planned, proposed, or existing FERC-related natural gas transmissions projects in the region, FERC limits consideration of cumulative impacts only to segments of projects within 10 miles of the Rover project.  FERC should instead be considering the broad impacts of the numerous projects that are emanating from the Marcellus shale region, many of them, including Nexus, duplicative.  It appears that the draft EIS is less reluctant to look at broader impacts when they favor construction.  On page 4-278 we find this statement:  “It is also possible that the Rover Project could contribute to cumulative improvements in regional air quality if a portion of the natural gas associated with the Project displaces the use of other fossil fuels that may contribute greater amounts of air pollutants of concern.”  FERC should be equally willing to look at cumulative adverse impacts such as the increase in green house gas emissions from methane leaks.

 We note that the December 2014 guidance document from the federal Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) recommended the use of a programmatic EIS when “several energy development programs proposed in the same region of the country have similar proposed methods of implementation and similar best practices and mitigation measures that can be analyzed in the same document.”  

CEQ further states, “Programmatic NEPA reviews provide an opportunity for agencies to incorporate comprehensive mitigation planning, best management practices, and standard operating procedures, as well as monitoring strategies into the Federal policymaking process at a broad or strategic level. These analyses can promote sustainability and allow Federal agencies to advance the nation’s environmental policy as articulated in Section 101 of NEPA.”

Addressing cumulative impacts in a systematic way is crucial not only for avoiding and mitigating adverse impacts, but also for assessing the economic viability of a project.

Summary

Ultimately, this is a badly flawed proposal.  FERC’s issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is supposedly based on a balancing of public benefits vs. possible adverse impacts.  The financial condition of Rover’s suppliers and the questionable level of market demand speak to the lack of public need, while the potential for adverse impacts is clear.   A company’s desire to build a pipeline does not constitute a need.  FERC, to date, has not thoroughly analyzed the need for this project, nor has it demonstrated that this is the only (or best) way to meet that need.  We should not be pitting the safety, economic value, and environmental health of property owners and communities against pipeline projects that are neither viable nor needed.

Michigan Chapter Update - April 3, 2016

Waukesha’s proposed Great Lakes Water Diversion

Today, over 40 bi-national conservation groups from across the Great Lakes submitted comments to the Regional Body and Compact Council urging the Great Lakes Governors to deny the first application for a Great Lakes diversion under the Great Lakes Compact.  Today is the last day for the public to comment on this proposal.

“The heart and soul of the Great Lakes Compact is the ban on diversions.  The Waukesha diversion application is the first since the Compact was adopted in 2008.  This application is a critical proving ground for the Compact, establishing its effectiveness and serving as a precedent for subsequent diversion proposals.  Given this historic moment, we must get this right.”

For more information on the diversion, please visit: protectourgreatlakes.org


March 14, 2016

Great Lakes –St. Lawrence Regional Body and Compact Council Waukesha Diversion Comments
c/o Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers
20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60606

Dear Regional Body/Compact Council Members:


On behalf of the undersigned bi-national conservation and environmental organizations and associations representing hundreds of thousands of people from across the Great Lakes, we are writing to submit public comments concerning the City of Waukesha’s proposed Great Lakes Water Diversion Application under the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (Compact).

The Great Lakes are a value to all of us, providing a cultural and economic identity.  They are part of our lives, help define who we are as a region, and they must be protected.  The Great Lakes Compact was designed and adopted to do just that: protect our Great Lakes.

The Waukesha diversion application is the first since the Compact was adopted in 2008.  This application is a critical proving ground for the Compact, establishing its effectiveness and serving as a precedent for subsequent diversion proposals.  Given this historic moment, we must get this right.

The Compact bans water diversions outside of the Great Lakes Basin with limited exceptions. A community outside the basin can only receive approval of a diversion under the Compact’s exception standard.  Any community applying for a diversion must demonstrate that it has exhausted all reasonable options to obtain water.  In essence, diversions must be a last resort.

The City of Waukesha can apply for an exception to the ban on Great Lakes diversions on its own behalf, but it cannot apply on behalf of a Water Supply Service Area (WSSA). By doing so, the application is defective because it is based on the purported need of a proposed WSSA.  As a result and in addition to the concerns we list below, Waukesha’s current application falls short of the Compact’s requirements.  Therefore, we respectfully request that the Regional Body and Compact Council Members veto this application on the ground that it does not meet the exception standard requirements of the Compact.

In particular, as we explain in more detail below, the City of Waukesha: 1) does not justify why it needs so much more water than it is currently using; 2) does not consider all reasonable alternatives to provide potable water for its residents; and 3) proposes to divert Great Lakes water to communities who do not need it.  Consequently, the Compact prohibits the approval of an exception from the ban on diversions.

Waukesha Fails to Demonstrate its Need for Increased Water

Under Section 4.9.4.b of the Compact, “The Exception will be limited to quantities that are considered reasonable for the purposes for which it is proposed.” Waukesha is currently using approximately 6 million gallons per day.  Yet, it is requesting a maximum capacity of 16 million gallons per day.  The City suggests that it will average about 10.1 million gallons per day as an annual average to meet projected demand at full build-out.  This is quite a jump and is not consistent with demand forecasts and historical trends that show water usage in the southeast region of Wisconsin is on the decline.

A National Wildlife Federation report authored in February 2013 by Jim Nicholas, a scientist and retired director of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Michigan Water Science Center, shows that Waukesha’s forecasts of average-day demand and maximum-day demand are based on models that inflate the city’s need for water in the future and are inconsistent with historical trends. Waukesha’s per capita water use or demand is declining and has been declining for about three decades.  Waukesha’s demand forecast for 2050, however, assumes a significant increase in per capita water use, despite planned implementation of conservation measures aimed at reducing water use. In addition, the report shows that regional groundwater levels in Southeast Wisconsin are stabilizing or rising.  The application fails to demonstrate why the city needs so much more water than it is currently using.  Without an explanation justifying the higher demand, the proposed diversion amount cannot be considered reasonable and, therefore, is inconsistent with the Compact.

Waukesha has a Feasible, Much Less Expensive, Alternative to Meet its Water Needs

Under Section 4.9.3.d of the Compact, an applicant for a diversion must demonstrate that “There is no reasonable water supply alternative within the basin in which the community is located, including conservation of existing water supplies.”  A July 2015 report by two independent engineering firms found that Waukesha has a feasible water supply alternative. The report concluded that Waukesha can use its existing deep and shallow water wells to provide ample clean and safe water to its residents now and in the future if it invests in additional water treatment infrastructure to ensure the water supply meets state and federal standards. This treatment alternative costs much less than a diversion, secures water independence for Waukesha residents, protects public health, and minimizes adverse resource impacts. Treating the city’s existing wells for radium in order to provide potable water is an obvious and reasonable option that the City of Waukesha does not even consider in the application. Over three dozen other communities in Wisconsin alone, not to mention scores of other communities around the country, have chosen this route and already provide potable drinking water to their residents.  Failure to evaluate this alternative in the application is not consistent with the Compact.

Diverting Great Lakes Water for Towns that Don’t Need It

Under Section 4.9.3.a of the Compact, “The Water shall be used solely for the Public Water Supply Purposes of the Community within a Straddling County that is without adequate supplies of potable water.” The city’s application proposes that Great Lakes water be diverted for other towns in Waukesha County, including Pewaukee and the towns of Delafield and Waukesha, among others, that may not need water.  To date, none of the communities in Waukesha’s “extended service area” has demonstrated that it is without adequate supplies of safe drinking water.  In fact, some officials in these areas have stated that they do not need water now or in the foreseeable future.  While Wisconsin statutes may dictate that Waukesha include these areas as part of its application, the Compact is clear that a need for water must exist in the community to be eligible for a diversion.   If these areas are included as part of Waukesha’s diversion application, they must demonstrate that they meet all requirements of the Compact, including that they are without adequate supplies of potable water and that there is no reasonable water supply alternative, including conservation, before the application is approved.

In closing, we appreciate the commitment of the Regional Body and Compact Council Members in negotiating, developing and implementing the Great Lakes Compact.  Many long hours were invested in developing the exception standards to Great Lakes diversion leading up to adoption of the Compact.  Now is the time to ensure those standards are met and applied to this diversion proposal.  As such, we respectfully request that each member of the Compact Council veto this application on the ground that it is not consistent with the Compact standards.  We appreciate your consideration of our comments.  If you have specific questions about our comments, please contact Marc Smith with National Wildlife Federation at msmith@nwf.org.  We look forward to working with you throughout this process.


Sincerely,

National Wildlife
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
Conserve-greatlakes.com
Ohio Environmental Council
Prairie Rivers Network (Illinois)
For Love of Water
Friends of the St. Joe River Association
Lake Erie Waterkeeper, Inc.
League of Ohio Sportsmen
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Minnesota Conservation Federation
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council (Michigan)
Michigan League of Conservation Voters
Freshwater Future
Environmental Advocates of New York
Save the River & Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper
Lake Erie Charter Boat Association
Hoosier Environmental Council
Great Lakes Environmental Law Center
Mullett Lake Area Preservation Society (Michigan)
Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters
Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Rivers Alliance of Wisconsin
Milwaukee Water Commons
Save the Dunes (Indiana)
Michigan Environmental Council
Burt Lake Preservation Association (Michigan)
Save Lake Superior Association (Minnesota)
Ohio Conservation Federation
Izaak Walton League of American, Great Lakes Committee
League of Woman Voters, Lake Michigan Region
Indiana Wildlife Federation
Clean Wisconsin
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
Citizens Campaign for the Environment (New York)
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Nature Quebec
Midwest Environmental Advocates
Sierra Club, Michigan Chapter
Save Our Sky Blue Waters (Minnesota)

Does MDEQ put economic growth ahead of people?

Keith Matheny, Detroit Free Press 11:55 p.m. EDT March 26, 2016

In the public health crisis over the lead contamination of the City of Flint's drinking water, a cascade of culpability has been leveled at federal, state and local officials. But, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has borne much of the blame.

In his testimony before a congressional committee on March 17, Gov. Rick Snyder said his administration's investigations into the crisis, "uncovered systemic failures" at the DEQ

"The fact is, bureaucrats created a culture that valued technical compliance over common sense — and the result was that lead was leaching into residents’ water," Snyder said.

But Flint wasn't the first time the DEQ took that approach. And as public anger and outcry over the crisis continues to grow, more scrutiny is being heaped on to the DEQ and its processes and mission, which critics say values business over people.

More ...

Michigan Chapter Update - March 20, 2016

Michigan Chapter Update - March 6, 2016